Court ruled a 14 year old Dutch girl cannot sail around the world solo

18 is the legal age that you're responsible for yourself in the United States, if a fourteen year old went on a sailing trip alone that's child neglect.

 

Child negelct or not. If the child, parents, family ect. all come to an agreed consensus they should be allowed to do it.

 

trash news

 

I say let the girl do it, but when she ends up hurt or dead, the parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

Why should they? Clearly they want to allow their child to do this, and the child also really want to do this. If the child dies then it is of no ones fault but her own.

 

Just because someone *can* do something doesn't mean they *should.*

I'm sure she wants to break world records and maybe she is capable. But even adults have died at sea. We don't let children live by themselves at age 14, we don't (legally) let them drink or drive without supervision, and they can't homeschool themselves.

So I'm not too keen on seeing a 14 year old try to sail around the world, by herself, with no adult supervision. When she learns how to punch a shark in the nose and survive a typhoon, or when she learns to go without food and/or water for a week, then we'll see.

Can you tell I don't like the idea?

 

Laws, regulations and rulings hinder practicality 99% of the time to save things 1% of the time.

Sailing around the world is inherently dangerous. Should anybody do it at any age?

Where should the line be drawn?

 

Apparently, the youngest person to ever sail around the world is 17 year old Mike Perham from the UK.

FWIW, in the UK 16 years old is the legal age at which people can do most things an adult can do, as long as they have permission from their parents.

I'd have to check to get the exact age, but I seem to recall reading somewhere of someone in their mid-teens (I think 15, but it might have been a little older, but definitely not 18) who cycled from one end of the States to the other completely on their own.

Teens have already done a lot more of the stuff that we consider "dangerous" then most people realise.

 

The law is the law, and I don't object.

 

I'm all for her trying.

 

haha that would be funny as hell them finding her body eight months later wiped on the shore of some 3rd world country.

 

This is a classic example of the flaws of hard written laws vs. more reliance on human judging in individual situations by the facts of the particular case. In most cases, yes, sending your 14 year old daughter out to "sail around the world" is absurd and clearly abusive behavior. But that is obviously not the case here. She has a special talent at a precocious age, and the courts should not deny her her right as a human and an expert sailor to sail the seas.

 

When it comes to dangerous activities i think at some point you have to let adults be adults.

People gain maturity or competency at different ages. This particular 14 year old might be wiser and more competent then some people twice her age.

The main concern i have about the venture is that there is a competition going on at the moment to be the youngest person to sail around the world. This is clear from the constant one-up-manship that is occuring around this particular dangerous activity. What is driving this?

Is the drive and ambition for this dangerous undertaking coming from the 14 year old individual who feels they need to have this adventure because sailing is such an important part of their life or is it coming from the parents who are living out their own dreams, ambitions and hopes, vicariously through their daughter?

 

Let's put it this way: If she wants to do it on her own, she really doesn't need anyone's permission. If she's that dead set on it, she can run away, or whatever. Kids to it all the time, and - sadly - they often end up dead when they do.

But really, all she wants to do is to beat that one kid's record. Otherwise she can wait until she's 18 and do it legally, on her own. What's a few years' wait time?

 

The parents have a responsibility to keep their child from doing stupid stuff that could get her hurt. It doesn't matter if she is willing to do it, she is a child and can't consent. As such, the parents should pay the price if she ends up hurt.

By your logic, if a pedophile were to find a single mother with a child, and could somehow convince both the mother and child that it was okay to molest the kid, then it would be perfectly fine since both the parent and kid were willing. And then its the fault of the child, because he or she "wanted" to do it.

You cannot pretend that kids are capable of making these kinds of decisions or that they are somehow responsible when their parents allow them to do so and they get hurt in the process.

 

If I could outdo Magellan at 14, I'd probably have given it a shot.

 

I was about to write the same thing (the part in bold.) But I agree with you completely.

 

That's not the same has what he's saying. The difference being in your situation you have a pedophile convincing the parents and the child that it's okay.

Whereas...

In this situation you have a kid who wants to do something and the parents agree.

While I'm not saying I agree or disagree with letting to kid go and sail the world, there is a big difference in my mind from a kid wanting to sail around the world and a pedophile convincing parents and a child that they want to be molested and that molestation is okay.